Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 13

< April 12	April 14 >

April 13

Category:Media companies based in England

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: speedy rename WP:C2C. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Media companies based in England to Category:Media companies of England

Nominator's rationale: In line with similar categories. Rathfelder (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Rathfelder: That could be done as a WP:C2C speedy. No need for a full discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK Done. Rathfelder (talk) 17:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Tatar topics

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tatar topics to Category:Tatars
Propose merging Category:Tatar peoples to Category:Tatars

Nominator's rationale: rename per main article Tatars and merge because having a separate Category:Tatar peoples next to Category:Tatars would be merely confusing and the amount of content in both categories is fairly limited anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:41, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this was a rename at cfd. The point is that Category:Tatars should be (by convention) a list category and Category:Tatar topics is a topic category. Oculi (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That rename was a CFD in 2008 with very limited participation and things have changed since then (e.g. a category referred to in that discussion has since been deleted/renamed). DexDor^(talk) 08:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both -- One is about ethnic groups. The other about wider topics. These are different. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sibling categories in Category:Ethnic groups in Russia has a "topics" in the name, why would this one be an exception? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I an not wedded to the name if you can suggest a better one. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As nominated, Category:Tatars. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted from CFD 2018 March 25 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the sequence with African Americans seems to have been Category:African American topics to Category:African American to Category:African-American society (see cfd mentioned by DexDor above). Changing topics to society would be OK by me. (Category:Tatar peoples should be kept as is.) Oculi (talk) 10:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw second nomination of merging Category:Tatar peoples as I note (based on previous comment) that it overcomplicates the discussion. However, I am not fond of the society solution. Having 'culture' and 'history' as subcategories of 'society' would be inconsistent with country categories, in which 'society' is a sibling of 'culture' and 'history'. Tatars, as nominated, is as simple and obvious as it can ever get. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't at all simple or obvious. The convention throughout category space is that 'foo' is a topic category, and 'foos' the corresponding list sub-category. This is why Category:Tatars was renamed at cfd with no support whatever for the name Tatars. Oculi (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With peoples, the convention is that 'foos' is the parent (topic category) and 'foo people' is the subcategory (set category for individual people). See for example Category:Oghuz Turks, Category:Franks, Category:Gilaks. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename (i.e. reverse the result of the 2008 cfd) per Marcocappelle and the convention that we don't use the word "topic" in category names. DexDor^(talk) 06:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Revelation 5

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Revelation 5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Revelation 11 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Revelation 21 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, the three categories each only contain their eponymous article which are in Category:Book of Revelation chapters already. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No scope for expansion. Dimadick (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I do not think we need any further split than "chapters". Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:ARU referees

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ARU referees to Category:Referees affiliated with Rugby Australia
Propose renaming Category:IRFU referees to Category:Referees affiliated with the Irish Rugby Football Union
Propose renaming Category:NZR referees to Category:Referees affiliated with New Zealand Rugby
Propose renaming Category:SARU referees to Category:Referees affiliated with the South African Rugby Union

Nominator's rationale: This is a category which organises referees by the governing body the referee is in. For example ARU stands for Australian Rugby Union. Since abbreviations should be spelled out these categories should be renamed to Australian Rugby Union referee, South African Rugby Union referee etc. However the trouble with that is we already have categories based on nationality, so a referee from Australia is an Australian rugby union referee. The difference between these two distinct categories is only capitalisation. Some referees have refereed in more than one country so will be a South African rugby union referee, South African Rugby Union referee and Australian Rugby Union referee (e.g. Rasta Rasivhenge). I feel the differences in naming are so minor in this case that they would be confusing to the general audience. I propose we use the slightly longer version that says "affiliated" to more clearly illustrate what the category contains. AIRcorn (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sounds good to me Djln Djln (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Category:SARU referees, as of now, does not list several prominent names such as Vivian Neser and Craig Joubert. My question which may some bearing on the CfD is: Are each of these omissions intended by design – or due to the category not being completely populated? -- Ham105 (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is also missing about a half dozen categories RFU referees, SRFU referrs, UAR referees etc. It is a relatively new category so I am guessing it is still being populated. So it is probably the best time to decide how to handle it as there will only be a few articles to update. AIRcorn (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference, in terms of inclusion within the sets, between Category:SARU referees and Category:South African rugby union referees? It would seem the grouping is identical? -- Ham105 (talk) 02:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SARU referees refereed in South Africa under the SARU and South African rugby union referees are referees with South African nationality. They are not always the same thing, especially when referees move around. See Talk:Rasta Rasivhenge for the discussion that led to this CFD. Another example is Steve Walsh (rugby referee). AIRcorn (talk) 02:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's two referees out of a few hundred. It is understood that the wording of the proposed new categories makes the distinction. However, in the case of South Africa (and I suspect for many countries) the set membership is exactly identical. The exceptions are few indeed, which suggests it is better to merge.

Propose merging

(Additional text added for clarification 13–15 April 2018:)

Merge Category:Rugby union referees by nationality Category:Rugby union referees by governing body → Category:Rugby union referees by national affiliation.
Child categories to be renamed:

The four newly-created (governing body) categories to be merged as below:

(End of additional text added for clarification: -- Ham105 (talk), 13–15 April 2018)

Rationale: Avoids substantial duplication. The parent categories could be merged to, say, "Category:Rugby union referees by national affiliation" or "Rugby union referees by governing body affiliation" or similar. Rasivhenge and Walsh can be safely included within two categories. -- Ham105 (talk) 03:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not too bothered by this personally, but know some editors like to categorise people by nationality. There is also Category:Rugby union referees by nationality to consider. @Ham105: do you mind if I ping Shudde and TheMightyPeanut. They were involved in the Rasivhenge discussion and know more about rugby than me. Am surprised they have not commented already. AIRcorn (talk) 10:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By all all means, please do. I have contacted those editors as well. In regards to Category:Rugby union referees by nationality, that was the parent category I was referring to. It could be become Category:Rugby union referees by national affiliation", or perhaps "Rugby union referees by governing body affiliation" or similar. -- Ham105 (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see you left a talk page note so there is no need to ping them. Thanks for that. AIRcorn (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Djln: As the creator of all these categories to be moved, would you please explain whether the referees mentioned in my earlier comment above have been excluded from Category:SARU referees by intention or unintentionally? I'd like to understand the scope of this category. @Aircorn: I think your move proposal has some issues. Some minor ones to start – the "Australian Rugby Union" no longer exists under that name, neither does the New Zealand Rugby Union. -- Ham105 (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with the changing to the new official names (New Zealand Rugby and Rugby Australia). I still think Referees affiliated with Rugby Australia is better than Rugby Australia referees, but it does solve the virtually identical category name problem somewhat. AIRcorn (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The answer to the question as to the right name is that it should be the present one. The precedent is alumni categories, where the alumni of a merged or rename college are deemed to have attended the successor. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Ham: I was quiet happy to just have referees defined by nationality. However the TheMightyPeanut insisted on placing two referees in "Category:Australian rugby union referees" even though they were not actually Australian. There are a number of referees who are employed by one union but have another nationality. I initially established "Category:Referees by rugby union" to try to resolve this issue. Some of these categories may not be fully populated, I may have unintentionally missed some referees out. Djln Djln (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for merge — It was the overwhelming consensus in this recent discussion re players with dual nationalities that a player's representative country is more important than his actual nationality (which is not necessarily easily verifiable and might be completely non-notable), and I still see no reason why the same principle should not apply to referees. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 06:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted from CFD 2018 March 15 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion has now moved on to a proposal to merge 4 referees-by-union categories and their respective nationality categories into a new set of combined categories. The 4 referees-by-union categories were not tagged (I will tag them now for this relisting), but more importantly there has been no discussion of the fact that Category:Rugby union referees by nationality has 16 consistently-named subcategories. Does this proposal intend to create 4 exceptions to that naming convention? Or to remove those 4 nationalities from Category:Rugby union referees by nationality? Either option breaks the consistency principle of categorisation. The number of loose ends here currently adds up to an unworkable proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of Merge proposal in reply to questions from BrownHairedGirl: My intention is for consistently-named subcategories; there is no plan to create 4 naming exceptions. I have added additional text to my merge proposal above (between Green markers) to define the suggested change better and to try to make this intention clearer. In essence:

(a) the word "affiliated" will be inserted into the names of the existing 16 consistently-named subcategories;

(b) the parent category will include the words "by national affiliation" instead of "by nationality";

(c) Rasta Rasivhenge will be a member of both the South African affiliated and Australian affiliated categories; and

(d) Steve Walsh will be a member of both the New Zealand affiliated and Australian affiliated categories.

This will avoid having two parent categories for rugby referees (currently more than a hundred pages) with almost identical set membership (greater than 95% overlap) as per WP:OVERLAPCAT. -- Ham105 (talk) 04:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re @BrownHairedGirl:'s comment – there are currently only 4 referees-by-union categories, so that in itself is inconsistent. As a full 'merging' proposal, I would recommend expanding @Ham105:'s proposal to:

Merging Category:ARU referees and Category:Australian rugby union referees to Category:Australian affiliated rugby union referees
Merging Category:IRFU referees and Category:Irish rugby union referees to Category:Irish affiliated rugby union referees
Merging Category:NZR referees and Category:New Zealand rugby union referees to Category:New Zealand affiliated rugby union referees
Merging Category:SARU referees and Category:South African rugby union referees to Category:South African affiliated rugby union referees
Renaming 12 other categories in Category:Rugby union referees by nationality from "<country> rugby union referees" to "<country> affiliated rugby union referees".
Merging Category:Rugby union referees by nationality and Category:Rugby union referees by governing body to Category:Rugby union referees by affiliation

TheMightyPeanut (talk) 04:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - I think TheMightyPeanut has clarified my proposal in much the same fashion as I did a few minutes earlier (we must have been typing our replies at the same time!) - but it is quite a simple proposal in reality and will not affect naming consistency amongst the subcategories -- Ham105 (talk) 04:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment. thanks for clarifying your intent, @Ham105. However, your proposal still can not be the basis of a valid CfD consensus unless you

set out precisely what you intend to do with each named category, listing all of them as TheMightyPeanut did with categories above. A vague wave at "12 other categories" is not enough.
tag each category which you intend to merge or rename

If that is done, then the closer can weigh the discussion and see if there is a consensus.

But without the tagging and listing, there can be no consensus.

I should also stress that this discussion has already become v long and confusing. It might be better to take this idea off to a discussion in project space, and come back to CfD later with a single, clear proposal, properly formatted. The chances of more editors wading through all this discussion are slim, which makes it unlikely that a closer would conclude that there is a consensus for the radical step of renaming the standard "nationality fooers" (used across all other occupations) to the novel "nationality-affiliated fooers". Breaking such a convention used on tens of thousands of categories would need clear and broad consensus that this case genuinely requires an exception. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All categories to be renamed or merged now specified and each category tagged. -- Ham105 (talk) 06:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Groups connected to the Khazars

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: selectively upmerge per nom. The oppose is clearly based on a misreading of the proposal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:45, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Groups connected to the Khazars to Category:Khazars

Nominator's rationale: selectively upmerge per WP:OCASSOC. This category is intentionally vague in whether these peoples and tribes are Khazars or not. If they are Khazars they belong in the parent category, but if there is too much doubt then they shouldn't be in the Khazars tree at all. For example, the Akatziri article says "the theory that they were ancestors of the Khazars is not backed up by any solid evidence". Marcocapelle (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of "connected" is indeed vague, but the topic of Khazar connection is notable and significantly discussed. Which groups are to be listed in this category is a good question, but this doesn't mean it should be deleted.GreyShark (dibra) 05:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Better still rename to Category:Khazar peoples. The content seems to be ethnic groups that made up the medieval Khazar state. ( know we also have Category:Khazar people, but that should be for individual bio-articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I expect anyone not involved in this discussion would not understand the difference between Category:Khazars and Category:Khazar peoples. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The target refers to all things concerning the Khazar polity, not just its ethnic groups, which is the content of this cateogry. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps Category:Khazar tribes may be better, in order to avoid the suggestion that it is the top category. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the category lists various groups, vaguely linked to the Khazars - sometimes by conspiracy theories or by known forks. Wikipedia shouldn't present theories and forks as facts!GreyShark (dibra) 09:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Greyshark09: Do I understand correctly that you would prefer to delete the category? The intention of the nomination is roughly along the same lines, in the sense that selectively has been added very deliberately and I also gave an example of an article that should be purged. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the merger. Keep as is.GreyShark (dibra) 05:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. Keeping the category as is means keeping a category based on conspiracy theories or known forks which you seem to object. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively upmerge per nom (or delete). I dont understand User:Greyshark09's objection. DexDor^(talk) 19:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted from CFD 2018 March 24 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Yoruba-speaking people

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. I will move Category:Yoruba-speaking people by occupation and the only tribe article currently in the category, Western Apoi tribe, up into Category:Yoruba language. – Fayenatic London 08:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Yoruba-speaking people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per similar AFD discussions in the past, see 1, 2, 3. I do not see how the ability to speak Yoruba is relevant to the individuals whose article is in this category. For those who it is, there is already a whole bunch of more relevant categories under Category:Yoruba-speaking people by occupation. Per WP:NONDEF. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This category is equally as important as similar existing categories like Category:Yiddish-speaking people and Category:Cornish-speaking people. Why single this one out? The category is very relevant because while the subjects are fluent in Yoruba, they do not using it mainly in their occupations as compared to those in the related subcategory: Category:Yoruba-speaking people by occupation. From my observation of the categories Category:Yiddish-speaking people and Category:Cornish-speaking people, it seemed they were retained because the speakers of these languages are a smaller population compared to dominant speakers of the English Language in the British Isles. Nothwithstanding, I wouldn't have supported the deletion of categories such as Category:Welsh-speaking people and Category:Scottish-Gaelic speaking people for any reason whatsoever. The Yoruba language is native to West Africa and it is one of the few African languages with similar categorization in the English Wikipedia. As such it is in a "minority" class status like the others. - Eruditescholar (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Eruditescholar: I think your opposition and usage of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS skirts the reason behind my nomination of this category for cfd. As you point out Yiddish and Cornish are comparitivly minor languages, while Yoruba is a very popular language with double digit millions of fluent speakers. The main issue here is WP:NONDEF, how for example is fluency in Yoruba relevant and important to Hakeem Olajuwon's life and career? A category such as this could be theoretically made for any language but that does not make it useful in terms of categorization. There already exists Category:Yoruba people for those individuals of Yoruba ethnicity, so this category seems to be rather unneeded. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe rename to Category:Yoruba-speaking peoples and repurpose to include various tribes that use the Yoruba language? I agree that the category's quite useless as it is, but if we have enough articles about Yoruba-speaking tribes, this would work well to hold them; an ethnic group's traditional language is definitely deserving of a category. Nyttend (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: I am not opposed to your idea per say, although in my opinion perhaps a title such as Category:Yoruba tribes might be more appropriate. Either way it does not seem that categorizing article of biographies per language fluency like this is useful unless it is relevant to the subject's career (i.e. a category such as Category:Yoruba-language writers). Inter&anthro (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I said I agree that the category's quite useless as it is; there's no real reason to have this category and use it for individual biographies. My reason for preferring the current title, pluralised, rather than "Yoruba tribes" is that I don't know how the Yoruba self-define; maybe it's on the basis of language (in which case I'd support your title), but if some tribes speak Yoruba but aren't ethnically Yoruba, your proposal and mine would inconveniently produce different results. Nyttend (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Category:Yoruba subgroups already fits this purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Inter&anthro: I have been restrained by logistics to make further contributions to this discussion until now. I was going to add yesterday prior to my restraint that the main purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information to users. In my opinion, WP:NONDEF does not apply here because the people in the category Category:Yoruba-speaking people are speakers of the Yoruba language but they do not use it mainly in their respective occupations like those in the related subcategory Category:Yoruba-speaking people by occupation. Other reasons why the category is important is that there are many people from other ethnicities who speak the Yoruba language and not all Yoruba people are fluent in the Yoruba language. This phenomenon is mostly evident among some Yoruba people in the diaspora. -Eruditescholar (talk) 12:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the defining characteristic here is not language but ethnicity. Nearly all articles of this category are also somewhere else in the ethnicity tree of Category:Yoruba people. The fact that Yoruba emigrants may no longer speek Yoruba language is irrelevant for this category, because these people will not show up in this category anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support, too much overlap with Category:Yoruba people. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, merge and purge of those who speak the language without being member of the Yoruba ethnicity. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Lucumí language in Cuba derives from the Yoruba language (and is at times considered a dialect), and serves as the sacred language for Santería practitioners. I am not certain whether the speakers should be classified as Yoruba people, though several of them are actually descendants of the Yoruba diaspora. Dimadick (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dimadick: the article of which you speak of (Lucumí language) is already in the categories of Category:Yoruba diaspora and Category:Yoruba language, both of which I feel are more appropriate for said article to be placed in than Category:Yoruba-speaking people. This is especially true because Lucumí is a liturgical language and hence not spoken on a daily basis. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted from CFD 2018 March 16 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Marcoappele.--TM 00:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the ability to speak a particular language is not defining. It is a different story for categories like Category:Yoruba-language writers where we categorize people by creating works of impact in that language, but just speaking can often be a trivial detail.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Events at the 1997 European Athletics U23 Championships

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename; merge in the case of 2011. – Fayenatic London 22:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Events at the 1997 European Athletics U23 Championships to Category:1997 European Athletics U23 Championships

Nominator's rationale: The typical organisation of these is to hold event articles at the main level, as the parent holds practically zero content otherwise (compared to the Olympics, for example). This also allows the event level categorisation to focus on events, and not be cluttered with needless year bi-sections. SFB 21:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted from CFD 2018 March 19 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this probably requires a broader nomination, "event" seems to be quite commonly used in the category tree in the meaning of a sports event, which these categories are all about. For example we have a double mentioning of "events" in the name of Category:Events at multi-sport events. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Marcocapelle: the root of the "event" naming multi-sport tree arose to accommodate non-sporting events like Category:Art competitions at the Olympic Games. This of course is of no relevance to single-sport championships like the one above. What would a broader nomination look like for you? The above nomination is to bring the above categories into line with the organisation of all other single-sport championship categories (e.g. Category:2017 World Wrestling Championships, Category:2010 World Artistic Gymnastics Championships). SFB 17:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Sillyfolkboy: Thanks for clarifying. Then, at least, we should discuss the fate of the tree of Category:Events at athletics (track and field) competitions which the above categories are part of. The above proposal results in removing the categories from that tree which just leaves a hole in the tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Marcocapelle: All the content will remain in that tree via the event-level categories at Category:Events at the European Athletics U23 Championships, which means one will be able to either browse by event or year directly from categories at Category:European Athletics U23 Championships too. SFB 20:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Sillyfolkboy: It would be against common sense to have subcategories not restricted to events contained in a parent category that is restricted to events, so for consistency the nominated categories should be moved from Category:Events at the European Athletics U23 Championships to Category:European Athletics U23 Championships. I was under the impression you had this in mind already, but perhaps I was mistaken. And that would mean emptying the 'events' tree for just one single competition. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, we are thinking the same here. My thinking is that anyone looking for a by-year grouping won't be going through the by-event tree, but rather the eponymous categories which are only one click away. SFB 13:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: do you support the nomination now? – Fayenatic London 07:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Fayenatic london and Sillyfolkboy: I do, but other "Events" subcategories of Category:Events at athletics (track and field) competitions should be nominated for merging or renaming as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Marcocapelle: I don't feel that proposal is identical with the nomination above, which focuses on single-year competition content. Is your thinking that the phrase "event" is unclear in general? In the Category:Events at athletics (track and field) competitions tree this is already distinguished further for multi-sport events (e.g. Category:Athletics events at the Olympics‎). Though the single-sport competitions do use plain "event at..." format a proposed rename of Category:Events at the World Championships in Athletics to Category:Athletics events at the World Championships in Athletics feels a little tautological to me and fails to really distinguish non-contest content from contest ones as something like 2017 World Championships in Athletics opening ceremony is arguably an "athletics event" too (unlike the multi-sport event ones). SFB 18:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: pinging again. – Fayenatic London 20:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for late reaction, I must have missed the previous ping. A vague term like event is perfectly fine for opening ceremonies and the like, but competitions should be named competitions and not events. Don't get me wrong, I am supporting the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:16th-century animal births

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. the merge targets such as Category:1516 deaths and Category:1655 deaths are subcats of Category:16th-century people and Category:17th-century people, so the effect would have been to categorise non-humans as "people".
This conflation of humans and non-humans would presumably be welcomed by opponents of speciesism, but it was not mentioned at any point in either the nomination or in the discussion, so I cannot judge that there is consensus to do it. A discussion which explicitly considered this effect might have a different outcome.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:16th-century animal births to Category:16th-century individual animals
Propose merging Category:1516 animal deaths to Category:16th-century individual animals and Category:1516 deaths
Propose merging Category:1553 animal deaths to Category:16th-century individual animals and Category:1553 deaths
Propose merging Category:17th-century animal births to Category:17th-century individual animals
Propose merging Category:1606 animal deaths to Category:17th-century individual animals and Category:1606 deaths
Propose merging Category:1644 animal deaths to Category:17th-century individual animals and Category:1644 deaths
Propose merging Category:1655 animal deaths to Category:17th-century individual animals and Category:1655 deaths

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only 4 articles each in the whole 16th and 17th century, no need to diffuse them. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have created some of these categories, but they haven't been expanded in years. Dimadick (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are two different issues here. I support merging the individual year categories per WP:SMALLCAT but want to retain the 16th-century animal births and 17th-century individual animals categories. The nominator's rationale for merging the century cats is not clear and, in particular, why have only the 16th-century and 17th-century been nominated when we also have Category:18th-century animal births, Category:19th-century animal births, Category:20th-century animal births and Category:21st-century animal births which have not been nominated? Greenshed (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In later centuries WP:SMALLCAT may not be as applicable, I would prefer to nominate them separately. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Also, century of birth does not define century of existence alone. Bankes's Horse lived in both the 16th and 17th centuries, for example. Greenshed (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Banke's Horse will also be in the 17th century because of the merger of Category:1606 animal deaths. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

True but some animals live for several centuries, e.g. Adwaita, Tu'i Malila, etc. To rephrase, centuries of birth and death do not define centuries of existence alone. Greenshed (talk) 23:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted from CFD 2018 March 3 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replying on the previous comment of 4 April: these examples are probably really exceptional and I wouldn't mind having the article in multiple century categories in that case. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question and comment If we are to eliminate the animal births by century categories, then would it not also be logical to get rid of the [human] births by century as well? Of course, I am not in favour of this (generally we single out birth years as defining attributes of people and, to some extent, animals) but mention it because it seems to me that the decision regarding animal births has rather wider implications. On the other hand, if this nomination is just about WP:SMALLCAT then 16th-century animal births and Category:17th-century animal births currently have three articles each which is certainly a small number but probably have modest prospects for growth and so on balance I would say keep these two categories and merge the rest. Greenshed (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It stretches a bit further than just SMALLCAT because the century of living is more defining than the century of birth, or in other words century of living overrules century of birth. They are strongly overlapping concepts anyway, with very few exceptions on that. This wouldn't be any different for human beings except for the fact that humans are usually categorized by year of birth and by century of living. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all cats here proposed That's helpful, thank you. What I think you're saying is that year of birth is quite distinct from century of existence and so both categories should stay. If a century of birth category is principally used a container for births by decade and year then that it a reason to keep such a century of birth category (not applicable for the 16th and 17th century animal births cats). On that basis I think you have persuaded me that all cats proposed here should be merged but that Category:18th-century animal births and onward should be kept (the animal births years in the 18th-century might need upmerging into decade cats). Greenshed (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Province of Venice

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Province of Venice to Category:Metropolitan City of Venice

Nominator's rationale: The province became the Metropolitan City in 2015. It's almost speedy-able, but I thought some people might want to keep the old category alongside the new name. Le Deluge (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mild keep - as we have separate articles for Province of Venice and Metropolitan City of Venice a better idea would be to create Category:Metropolitan City of Venice as a parent for Category:Province of Venice. Oculi (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question @Le Deluge and Oculi: suppose Category:Province of Venice is kept while Category:Metropolitan City of Venice is created as a parent category, which content would remain in Category:Province of Venice, apart from the eponymous article? In other words, how viable is the category with the name of the former province? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I thought there would be quite a lot but on inspection the nom as it stands doesn't seem to introduce anachronisms, as Category:Venice could sit in either as immediate parent. Oculi (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per above discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, move contents, and repopulate. Articles belonging in this category include Roman Catholic Diocese of Adria-Rovigo, Roman Catholic Diocese of Belluno-Feltre, Roman Catholic Diocese of Chioggia, Roman Catholic Diocese of Concordia-Pordenone, Roman Catholic Diocese of Padova, Roman Catholic Diocese of Treviso, Roman Catholic Diocese of Verona, Roman Catholic Diocese of Vicenza, and Roman Catholic Diocese of Vittorio Veneto, all of which are in the province of Venice regardless of civil jurisdictions' renaming. Nyttend (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: I don't understand. Why would we populate a former province category with Catholic dioceses? They are in the ecclesiastical province of Venice, not in the civil province of Venice. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because "province of Venice" can refer to either one, and having a category for the ecclesiastical province is quite reasonable. Nyttend (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend: This is actually about creating a whole new category (new scope and new content). It should at minimum be named Category:Roman Catholic Ecclesiastical Province of Venice to match with its new main article Roman Catholic Ecclesiastical Province of Venice. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted from CFD 2018 March 1 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.